Court Allows Elderly Crypto Fraud Victim’s Complaint Against Chase to Continue

Financial elder abuse has become one of the fastest-growing forms of financial crime in California, draining billions of dollars from older adults each year through scams and transactions that too often proceed despite obvious warning signs. These cases are rarely the result of simple mistakes; they often involve deliberate deception, undue influence, or the knowing facilitation of suspicious transactions by individuals or institutions that had the ability—and the obligation—to intervene. California law recognizes the severity of this misconduct and provides strong civil remedies for victims, including claims against not only the primary wrongdoers, but also those who assisted or enabled the abuse. When an elderly person’s assets are wrongfully taken, delayed action can permanently foreclose recovery, making early legal review critical.

Central District of California Rules in Favor of Victim, Against Chase

In a recent federal decision from the Central District of California[1], Alice Lin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the court allowed an elderly woman’s claims against her bank to move forward after she lost more than $721,000 of her retirement savings in what is now commonly known as a “pig-butchering[2]” scam. The case is a stark illustration of how modern financial fraud targets seniors[3] and how banks may face liability when they process highly suspicious transactions without meaningful intervention

Alice Lin was seventy-nine years old at the time of the fraud. According to the allegations in her complaint, an unknown scammer slowly cultivated a relationship with her, gaining her trust over time. The scammer portrayed himself as a friend and a successful cryptocurrency investor, eventually persuading Lin that she too could profit from crypto investments. He instructed her to download what appeared to be a legitimate investment application on her phone. In reality, the application was fake, and the supposed investment account existed only to funnel her money to the scammer.

Over the course of less than three weeks, Lin wired a total of $721,500 out of her JPMorgan Chase bank account in seven separate wire transfers. These were not routine transactions for her. Prior to the fraud, Lin had not initiated a wire transfer in at least seven years, and her average monthly account balance had been relatively modest. Suddenly, her banking activity changed dramatically: large sums of money were deposited into her account and then quickly wired out, sometimes on the same day. Several of the transfers were processed in rapid succession, including multiple high-value wires on back-to-back days.

Rather than suing the scammer—who remained unidentified—Lin brought suit against JPMorgan Chase and a Chase branch manager. She alleged that the bank and its employee assisted in financial elder abuse by processing the wire transfers despite obvious warning signs and by failing to take basic protective steps. These steps included questioning her about the purpose of the transfers, delaying the transactions, or contacting her daughter, who was a joint accountholder on the account.

The bank moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it could not be held liable for simply providing routine banking services and that California’s Financial Elder Abuse Law requires proof of actual knowledge when a defendant is accused of “assisting” abuse committed by someone else. The court agreed with the legal standard advanced by the bank: under existing California appellate precedent, a bank is not liable for assisting elder financial abuse unless it had actual knowledge that abuse was occurring. Mere negligence or a claim that the bank “should have known” is not enough.

But agreeing on the legal standard did not end the case. The court emphasized that actual knowledge does not have to be proven by direct evidence, such as an admission. It can be inferred from circumstantial evidence if the facts plausibly show that the defendant must have known what was happening. Applying that principle, the court concluded that Lin had plausibly alleged actual knowledge based on the pattern and context of the transactions.

Several facts were critical. Six of the seven wire transfers were processed by the same employee at the same Chase branch. These wires were unusually large, occurred in quick succession, and represented a dramatic departure from Lin’s historical banking behavior. In addition, another Chase employee allegedly expressed immediate concern when presented with one of the transfer attempts, warning Lin that another customer who wired money had “lost it.” Taken together, the court found that these allegations supported a reasonable inference that the employee processing the wires must have known Lin was the victim of financial abuse, not merely that the situation looked suspicious in hindsight.

The court also allowed Lin’s claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law to proceed, at least under the statute’s “unfair” prong. While the court rejected arguments based on the bank’s alleged failure to file elder-abuse reports and rejected any fraud-based theory, it held that Lin plausibly alleged an unfair business practice. Specifically, the alleged practice of repeatedly processing highly suspicious wire transfers for an elderly customer, without inquiry or outreach to a joint accountholder, could be found to cause substantial harm that outweighed any benefit to the bank. Notably, unlike the elder abuse statute, this unfair-competition theory does not require proof of actual knowledge.

The bank also argued that the individual branch manager could not be held personally liable because she was acting within the scope of her employment. The court rejected that argument as well, explaining that under California law, employees may be personally liable for their own wrongful acts even when acting on behalf of their employer. As a result, the claims against the individual defendant were allowed to proceed.

At this stage, the court was careful to note that it was not deciding whether JPMorgan Chase or its employees were ultimately liable. The ruling addressed only whether Lin’s allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Even so, the decision carries important implications. It reflects a judicial willingness to scrutinize banks’ conduct when elderly customers are drained of life savings through modern scams and to recognize that patterns of extreme, aberrational transactions can support an inference of actual knowledge.

The case also highlights the evolving nature of elder financial abuse. Today’s scams are often long-term, psychologically manipulative schemes that exploit trust rather than force or overt deception. Seniors may sincerely believe they are acting voluntarily and wisely, even as their savings are being siphoned away. Against that backdrop, the court’s decision underscores that financial institutions cannot always rely on formal customer authorization alone when the surrounding circumstances scream fraud.

As elder financial abuse continues to rise—particularly in connection with cryptocurrency-related schemes—cases like Alice Lin v. JPMorgan Chase illustrate how courts are grappling with the boundary between ordinary banking services and actionable assistance in abuse. The decision signals that when red flags pile up and vulnerable seniors are involved, inaction itself may carry legal consequences.

What Senior Citizens Need to Know about Elder Abuse

This type of abuse can take many forms. It might involve theft or unauthorized transfers of money, pressure to make unsuitable investments, or deception to gain control over financial accounts. The abuser might be a family member, caregiver, friend, or even a trusted professional, such as a financial advisor.

Common tactics include pressuring a senior to grant power of attorney, convincing them to sign over assets, misrepresenting the nature of an investment, or taking advantage of their trust to access funds without consent.

Early detection is key. Signs that a senior might be experiencing financial abuse include:

• Large or unexplained withdrawals from bank or investment accounts
• Sudden changes in spending habits or financial behavior
• New individuals involved in the senior’s financial decisions
• Important documents or valuables going missing
• Unexpected changes to estate plans or beneficiary designations

Family members and caregivers should stay alert for these red flags and take action if something seems off.

Read the Decision

Legal Protections in California

California offers strong legal remedies for victims of financial elder abuse. Seniors who have been exploited can pursue civil claims to recover financial losses, and the law allows for reimbursement of legal costs. These protections reflect the understanding that older adults can be especially at risk and deserve robust safeguards.

Typically, victims have up to four years from the time they become aware of the abuse to file a claim. Acting quickly is crucial to preserve evidence and maximize the chances of recovery.  When the abuse involves investments or misconduct by brokerage firms or financial advisors, the dispute may be resolved through arbitration rather than a court trial. Arbitration provides a venue for addressing complex financial claims, including unsuitable investment recommendations, unauthorized trading, or failures to supervise advisors.

An experienced attorney can help guide families through the arbitration process and work to secure fair compensation for losses.

If you suspect that a senior is being financially exploited:

1. Collect records. Save bank statements, investment documents, and any communication with advisors.
2. Secure accounts. Contact financial institutions to prevent further unauthorized transactions.
3. Report concerns. Alert the brokerage firm or appropriate authorities.
4. Consult an attorney. Legal help can clarify options and accelerate recovery.

Free Confidential Consultations

If you believe an elderly family member has been financially exploited, it is critical to act quickly. MDF Law represents victims of financial elder abuse throughout California and conducts thorough investigations to determine who is legally responsible—including financial institutions and advisors that enabled the misconduct. Contact MDF Law to discuss your situation and protect your rights before valuable evidence and recovery options are lost.